Search for: "Charles D Washington" Results 281 - 300 of 1,170
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 May 2009, 5:47 am
Merrill's case has been referred to Washington D.C. for an en banc hearing before all 19 judges on the United States Tax Court. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 8:50 am by Aaron
” The casino floor was therefore not within the scope of RCW 9A.36.031(1)(d). [read post]
24 May 2016, 9:53 am by Emily Everson
” “This land is as central to the Battle of Princeton as the field of Pickett’s Charge is to Gettysburg and as Omaha Beach is to D-Day,” Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Hackett Fischer, whose book Washington’s Crossing won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for history, has emphasized. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 2:20 pm
"Charles Lane of the Washington Post reports here on the Court's unanimous decision in the Davenport union fees case; in the USA Today, Joan Biskupic reports here on the ruling that "endorsed a unique Washington state law that bars unions from using non-member fees for political advocacy without first getting explicit consent from the non-members"; Tony Mauro has this report for the First Ammendment Center; and in today's Wall Street Journal,… [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 11:32 am
A photo obtained by The Washington Post and released May 6, 2004, shows U.S. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 11:40 am
Anderson has this article (subscription req'd) in the Wall Street Journal on the Court's decision striking down voluntary integration policies in two school districts and Jess Bravin answers questions on the school assignment decision here at the WSJ.com Washington Wire blog; David G. [read post]
17 May 2011, 10:22 am by David Ingram
Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted for Carney but did so, he said, reluctantly. [read post]
4 Sep 2018, 4:16 am by Edith Roberts
” In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Charles Lane suggests that Kavanaugh’s “opinion on the individual mandate … provides hope that he at least understands the costs — legal and, yes, political — of precipitous judicial action. [read post]